Re-framing the question

Economics is notoriously a field in which there is rarely broad consensus on really major questions. In times like the present, the ideological fault lines may shift considerably, but they don't go away. This is one reason--along with others, not least of which is the fact that I'm not now nor have I ever been an economist--that I don't like to get bogged down by abstract debates about overarching ways of looking at economic policy. It's hard to appeal to "the experts" when they're split, and I get tired of playing pick-an-expert or regurgitating talking points.

So, while a person of my political persuasion may be glad to see an ad in the Washington Post in which a long list of prominent economists offers support for EFCA, I think Ezra has exactly the right response:

Expect, of course, to see a counter-letter of economists opposing EFCA shortly. Which is just the point: Economists disagree on the impact of unions. So the question ends up being whether you want to err on the side of distributing more to the workforce or err on the side of distributing more the executive class.

So the question for the purposes of laypeople like me isn't which group of economists has a more persuasive methodology. How the hell do I know? The question is rather whether you want to put the burden of proof on the folks advocating for the haves or on those advocating for the have-nots. For me, that's a pretty easy call.